Sydney M Dy1, Nebras Abu Al Hamayel2, Susan M Hannum3, Ritu Sharma2, Sarina R Isenberg3, Kamini Kuchinad4, Junya Zhu2, Katherine Smith3, Karl A Lorenz5, Arif H Kamal6, Anne M Walling7, Sallie J Weaver8. 1. Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA; Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA; Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. Electronic address: dy1@jhu.edu. 2. Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 3. Department of Health, Behavior and Society, The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 4. Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 5. Stanford School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA. 6. Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA. 7. VA Greater Los Angeles Health System, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA. 8. National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Although critical for improving patient outcomes, palliative care quality indicators are not yet widely used. Better understanding of facilitators and barriers to palliative care quality measurement and improvement might improve their use and program quality. OBJECTIVES: Development of a survey tool to assess palliative care team perspectives on facilitators and barriers to quality measurement and improvement in palliative care programs. METHODS: We used the adapted Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to define domains and constructs to select instruments. We assembled a draft survey and assessed content validity through pilot testing and cognitive interviews with experts and frontline practitioners for key items. We analyzed responses using a constant comparative process to assess survey item issues and potential solutions. We developed a final survey using these results. RESULTS: The survey includes five published instruments and two additional item sets. Domains include organizational characteristics, individual and team characteristics, intervention characteristics, and process of implementation. Survey modules include Quality Improvement in Palliative Care, Implementing Quality Improvement in the Palliative Care Program, Teamwork and Communication, Measuring the Quality of Palliative Care, and Palliative Care Quality in Your Program. Key refinements from cognitive interviews included item wording on palliative care team members, programs, and quality issues. CONCLUSION: This novel, adaptable instrument assesses palliative care team perspectives on barriers and facilitators for quality measurement and improvement in palliative care programs. Next steps include evaluation of the survey's construct validity and how survey results correlate with findings from program quality initiatives.
CONTEXT: Although critical for improving patient outcomes, palliative care quality indicators are not yet widely used. Better understanding of facilitators and barriers to palliative care quality measurement and improvement might improve their use and program quality. OBJECTIVES: Development of a survey tool to assess palliative care team perspectives on facilitators and barriers to quality measurement and improvement in palliative care programs. METHODS: We used the adapted Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to define domains and constructs to select instruments. We assembled a draft survey and assessed content validity through pilot testing and cognitive interviews with experts and frontline practitioners for key items. We analyzed responses using a constant comparative process to assess survey item issues and potential solutions. We developed a final survey using these results. RESULTS: The survey includes five published instruments and two additional item sets. Domains include organizational characteristics, individual and team characteristics, intervention characteristics, and process of implementation. Survey modules include Quality Improvement in Palliative Care, Implementing Quality Improvement in the Palliative Care Program, Teamwork and Communication, Measuring the Quality of Palliative Care, and Palliative Care Quality in Your Program. Key refinements from cognitive interviews included item wording on palliative care team members, programs, and quality issues. CONCLUSION: This novel, adaptable instrument assesses palliative care team perspectives on barriers and facilitators for quality measurement and improvement in palliative care programs. Next steps include evaluation of the survey's construct validity and how survey results correlate with findings from program quality initiatives.
Authors: Anna P Schenck; Franziska S Rokoske; Danielle Durham; John G Cagle; Laura C Hanson Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2014-06-12 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Andrew J Jager; Shahid A Choudhry; Jill A Marsteller; Robin P Telford; Matthew K Wynia Journal: Am J Med Qual Date: 2016-07-28 Impact factor: 1.852
Authors: Alexi A Wright; Nancy L Keating; John Z Ayanian; Elizabeth A Chrischilles; Katherine L Kahn; Christine S Ritchie; Jane C Weeks; Craig C Earle; Mary B Landrum Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-01-19 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Sydney M Dy; Karl A Lorenz; Sean M O'Neill; Steven M Asch; Anne M Walling; Diana Tisnado; Anna Liza Antonio; Jennifer L Malin Journal: Cancer Date: 2010-07-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Hsien Seow; Claire F Snyder; Richard A Mularski; Lisa R Shugarman; Jean S Kutner; Karl A Lorenz; Albert W Wu; Sydney M Dy Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Laura J Damschroder; David C Aron; Rosalind E Keith; Susan R Kirsh; Jeffery A Alexander; Julie C Lowery Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2009-08-07 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Sydney M Dy; Ritu Sharma; Kamini Kuchinad; Zi-Rou Liew; Nebras Abu Al Hamayel; Susan M Hannum; Junya Zhu; Arif H Kamal; Anne M Walling; Karl A Lorenz; Sarina R Isenberg Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2018-12 Impact factor: 3.840